4.4 Article

Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine: Results of the EVOLVE-2 Phase 3 randomized controlled clinical trial

期刊

CEPHALALGIA
卷 38, 期 8, 页码 1442-1454

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0333102418779543

关键词

Episodic migraine; headache; CGRP; humanized monoclonal antibody; galcanezumab; LY2951742; MSQ; MIDAS

资金

  1. Eli Lilly and Company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Galcanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody binding calcitonin gene-related peptide, used for migraine prevention. Methods A global, double-blind, 6-month study of patients with episodic migraine was undertaken with 915 intent-to-treat patients randomized to monthly galcanezumab 120mg (n=231) or 240mg (n=223) or placebo (n=461) subcutaneous injections. Primary endpoint was overall mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days. Key secondary endpoints were 50%, 75%, and 100% response rates; monthly migraine headache days with acute migraine medication use; Patient Global Impression of Severity rating; the Role Function-Restrictive score of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. Results Mean monthly migraine headache days were reduced by 4.3 and 4.2 days by galcanezumab 120 and 240mg, respectively, and 2.3 days by placebo. The group differences (95% CIs) versus placebo were 2.0 (-2.6, -1.5) and 1.9 (-2.4, -1.4), respectively. Both doses were superior to placebo for all key secondary endpoints. Injection site pain was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event, reported at similar rates in all treatment groups. Both galcanezumab doses had significantly more injection site reactions and injection site pruritus, and the 240mg group had significantly more injection site erythema versus placebo. Conclusions Galcanezumab 120 or 240mg given once monthly was efficacious, safe, and well tolerated. Study identification EVOLVE-2; NCT02614196; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02614196. Trial Registration NCT02614196.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据